The worldly-minded and fanatical portion of the
people were incapable of understanding these words of Christ; instead of
inspiration they saw nothing but extravagance. But others were irresistibly
attracted; words, such as no other could utter, seemed to them in perfect
harmony with works, such as no other could do. New divisions arose
303and the power of the Sanhedrim, of course, was upon the side of
Christ’s enemies.

The life of Jesus was more and more endangered every day at
Jerusalem, and his ministry more and more disturbed. He, therefore, withdrew
from the metropolis and returned to Capernaum, now, indeed, for the last time.548548 From the statements of John, taken alone,
we should infer that Christ did not leave the city immediately after the Feast
of Tabernacles, but remained until that of the Dedication. It is true that John
does not expressly say (x., 22) that he remained, which deviation from the
ordinary rule we might expect him to have mentioned; but this omission can be
explained more readily than the omission of the journey back to Galilee.
Moreover, it would be easier to trace the connexion of the history by supposing
the previous journey to have been the last, than by admitting the one adopted in
our text (chap. xi.). The course of preparation for his death to which he
subjected his disciples (as already related) would suit much better to this
hypothesis, as taking place just before the last journey than before the next to
the last. Thus far we agree with B. Jacobi (Dissertation on the Chronology of
the Life of Jesus, before cited). But we learn from Luke, ix., 51, that Jesus
made his last journey through Samaria; that he travelled slowly, in order
to scatter the seeds of the kingdom in the towns and villages as he passed, and
to make wholesome impressions upon the people. Against John’s testimony such an
authority as this would not avail; and it may be admitted, too, that the
accounts of two journeys are blended together in it, with other foreign matter.
Cf. Luke, xiii., 22; xvii., 11, in which passages a beginning is made towards
accounts of two journeys, though they, perhaps, refer to the same one. But it is
clear, in any case, that many things recited here must belong to a last journey;
for instance, xiii., 31-33. Now it cannot be for a moment supposed that this
journey, so described, was the one that Christ took in order to attend the Feast
of Tabernacles (John, viii., 2, seq.); for John tells us that in that case he
remained behind the rest, and, avoiding all publicity, came into the city
unexpectedly after the feast had gone on for some days; all utterly in conflict
with Luke’s account of the journey through Samaria. Nor is it internally
probable that Christ would have remained in the city after the feast at a time
when his labours must have suffered so many hindrances from the persecutions of
the Pharisees; the last period of his stay on earth was to be more actively
employed. Nor does this view of the case contradict John’s statements; it only
presupposes a blank necessary to be filled. We have thus drawn attention to the
arguments advanced on both sides; not intending, however, to preclude further
inquiry of our own. Cannot John’s statement, that Jesus went up to the feast “not openly, but, as it were, in secret”
(vii., 10), be explained by supposing
that he did not take the usual caravan road, nor journey with a caravan, but
took an unusual route through Samaria, a province that held no connexion
whatever with Judea? May not his late arrival at Jerusalem, in the middle of the
feast, be explained on the ground that he intentionally took the longer route?
Admitting this, it will be easy (as Krabbe and Wieseler allow) to reconcile
John’s account with Luke’s.

548 From the statements of John, taken alone,
we should infer that Christ did not leave the city immediately after the Feast
of Tabernacles, but remained until that of the Dedication. It is true that John
does not expressly say (x., 22) that he remained, which deviation from the
ordinary rule we might expect him to have mentioned; but this omission can be
explained more readily than the omission of the journey back to Galilee.
Moreover, it would be easier to trace the connexion of the history by supposing
the previous journey to have been the last, than by admitting the one adopted in
our text (chap. xi.). The course of preparation for his death to which he
subjected his disciples (as already related) would suit much better to this
hypothesis, as taking place just before the last journey than before the next to
the last. Thus far we agree with B. Jacobi (Dissertation on the Chronology of
the Life of Jesus, before cited). But we learn from Luke, ix., 51, that Jesus
made his last journey through Samaria; that he travelled slowly, in order
to scatter the seeds of the kingdom in the towns and villages as he passed, and
to make wholesome impressions upon the people. Against John’s testimony such an
authority as this would not avail; and it may be admitted, too, that the
accounts of two journeys are blended together in it, with other foreign matter.
Cf. Luke, xiii., 22; xvii., 11, in which passages a beginning is made towards
accounts of two journeys, though they, perhaps, refer to the same one. But it is
clear, in any case, that many things recited here must belong to a last journey;
for instance, xiii., 31-33. Now it cannot be for a moment supposed that this
journey, so described, was the one that Christ took in order to attend the Feast
of Tabernacles (John, viii., 2, seq.); for John tells us that in that case he
remained behind the rest, and, avoiding all publicity, came into the city
unexpectedly after the feast had gone on for some days; all utterly in conflict
with Luke’s account of the journey through Samaria. Nor is it internally
probable that Christ would have remained in the city after the feast at a time
when his labours must have suffered so many hindrances from the persecutions of
the Pharisees; the last period of his stay on earth was to be more actively
employed. Nor does this view of the case contradict John’s statements; it only
presupposes a blank necessary to be filled. We have thus drawn attention to the
arguments advanced on both sides; not intending, however, to preclude further
inquiry of our own. Cannot John’s statement, that Jesus went up to the feast “not openly, but, as it were, in secret”
(vii., 10), be explained by supposing
that he did not take the usual caravan road, nor journey with a caravan, but
took an unusual route through Samaria, a province that held no connexion
whatever with Judea? May not his late arrival at Jerusalem, in the middle of the
feast, be explained on the ground that he intentionally took the longer route?
Admitting this, it will be easy (as Krabbe and Wieseler allow) to reconcile
John’s account with Luke’s.